academic writeup, under prof. leslie johnson, 2024
Architectural interiority is a gradient condition which encapsulates the confluence of the human experience and spatial design of enclosures. The condition manifests an introspective dialogue between built environments and their occupants; it is the essence of how internal spaces are perceived, experienced, and interacted with, transcending functionality to engage deeply with human psychology and habit.
At its core, interiority pertains to the inward focus of architectural spaces – spaces which exist in a critical symbiosis with their users and activators. This concept is beyond furnishing or materiality; it is fundamentally about creating spaces that evoke a profound sense of belonging, introspection, and comfort. For architect-educator Mohsen Mostafavi, the term necessitates “an entanglement of art and design, of aesthetic pleasure, and of the fulfillment of everyday functions”. Thus, interiority manifests in the crucial nodes of spatial composition – the interplay of light and shadow, the careful calibration of proportions, and the strategic use of space – all contributing to an immersive, introspective experience which lies somewhere on the privacy gradient. Mostafavi’s indications underscore the realism of the interior; unlike the bold facades that can be admired but often remain as sculptural object, interiors have choreographies “akin to that of a theatrical setting”. They are the stage for daily life in a wide range of ways. All humans move through and among them in all ways, from the deliberately measured to the freeform and unplanned.
Consider the personal resonance of a cherished room—perhaps a library with walls lined with books, the scent of aged paper mingling with the aroma of coffee, or a minimalist bedroom where uncluttered space invites clarity and tranquility. These spaces are imbued with interiority, reflecting and shaping the inner world of their occupants, becoming a sanctuary where arrangements of material goods define the rhythms of life. In Life at Home in the 21st Century, Jeanne Arnold catalogs the artifacts that define homes through a series of unstaged photographs. Arnold’s approach is both a product of her training as an archaeologist and educator within the discipline, as well as her own lived experiences across her lifespan. To this point, the cluttered kitchens and shared bedrooms exemplify a radical tenet of architecture and the interior: each individual’s lived experience is a long and honest study into the very nature of interiority, and as such its definitions become deeply personal and patterned. All users of space are also its sponsors and activators.
As the architectural discipline has grown towards a culture of hyper-intellectualism and academic exclusivity, these realities have been progressively removed from discourse around the interior. Niklas Maak parses the issues of domesticity and interior in a text clearly directed towards field professionals. His claims are delivered with a combative austerity, stylistically opposing both Arnold’s tactility and Mostafavi’s propensity for ‘archispeak’. This attitude is a direct reflection of and vehicle for Maak’s own positions on interiority; he defines late-stage capitalism as a major agitator, and interrogates the role of the architect in relating to it. These points reflect certain aspects of Arnold’s and Mostafavi’s takes, respectively, without direct assent. The archaeological and highly academic elements lend themselves to a settled definition of interiority as the linear progression of its well-studied, well-defined domestic precursors. The interior, in this tradition, becomes a fluid version of a “machine for living” just as it has always been. It is a collection of interlocking units that are responsive to the dynamic needs and desires of their users, facilitating activities, moods, and functions.
For Maak, the modern interior is a problem to be solved: a decaying hyperobject that is at once a political, historical, financial, social, and architectural entity. There is an air of pessimistic realism that pervades it. It is the object of fetishization in digital media and physical spaces. Because of this, interiority can now be grasped as something entirely new, with no relation to the spaces of prehistoric or premodern domiciles – or it can be seen as a material remnant of an aging lifestyle model. In any case, interiority is not a settled state in and of itself.
Perhaps even more central to the topic are its semiotics. All interiors are defined by the signs and symbols of placemaking within them. A structure is just a structure, not a sanctuary or home, without deliberate spatial design, privacy from (or closeness to) other social or physical spaces, and elements of wear and tear through use. Cultural or personal tradition can be a key catalyst for placemaking, but so can practicality or convenience.
The reality of the interior is not only an architectural one; designers might create spaces which are rife with functionality, but the truest definitions of interiority are those which consider and honor the complex principles of living and the very human condition which has informed them since its inception.